RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels
draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-09

[Ballot comment]
Hello

it's getting late here so please dismiss any tiredness induced comment.

      3.1.1.  IPv4 B-SFRR-Ready IPv4 Extended ASSOCIATION ID  . . .  7
      3.1.2.  IPv6 B-SFRR-Ready IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION ID  . . .  8
IPv4 and IPv6 appear twice. Not sure the second is needed.


You leave unspecified how to set the Global Association Source of Extended ASSOCIATION object. If it is as in 6780 then I suggest to explicitly say it. Indeed you explicitly refer to 4872 for the three other fields.


It might be a stupid thing to do, but the text is not clear on whether an IPv4 B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION ID can be added as the Extended Association ID of an IPv6 Extended ASSOCIATION object and vice versa. Text is clear for B-SFRR-Active however.


Why the MP does the test on the Bypass_Destination_Address:
  When forwarding an RSVP Path message downstream, the MP SHOULD remove
  any/all B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION object(s) whose Association
  ID contains Bypass_Destination_Address matching the MP node address.
while the PLR does it on the association source (and not on the Bypass_Source_Address):
  Note, when forwarding an RSVP Resv message upstream, the PLR node
  SHOULD remove any/all B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION objects whose
  Association Source matches the PLR node address.

By the way, Bypass_Destination_Address does not exist per se in your spec, only Bypass_Destination_IPv4_Address and Bypass_Destination_IPv6_Address


  The RSVP_HOP_Object field in the B-SFRR-Active Extended ASSOCIATION
  ID is set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in
  Section 3.3 of this document.
There is no mention of RSVP_HOP in Section 3.3

[Ballot comment]
Nice and simple.  Thanks!

RFC 2961 says that MESSAGE_ID objects are "always generated and
processed over a single hop between RSVP neighbors", but IIRC the PLR
and MP need not be immediate neighbors.  Has this restriction from RFC
2961 already been lifted by some other document that we can reference
(e.g., in Section 3.1.x where we say "a MESSAGE_ID object as defined by
[RFC2961]")?

Is it generally understood that "Reserved for future use." means "set to
zero on transmit and ignore on receipt, until further notice"?

Section 1

  similar number of LSPs that ingress on the same link.  In the event
  of the failure of the link or neighbor node, the RSVP-TE control
  plane of the node when acting as a PLR becomes busy rerouting
  protected LSPs signaling over the bypass tunnel(s) in one direction,

nit: I think there's a singular/plural (possessive?) mismatch near
"LSPs".

Section 3


  The PLR SHOULD assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all
  protected LSPs that egress the same protected interface and are
  protected by the same bypass tunnel.  This minimizes the number of
  bypass tunnel SFRR groups, and optimizes the amount of signaling
  needed between the PLR and the MP after FRR.
  [...]
  The PLR SHOULD assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all
  protected LSPs that share the egress link, and bypass tunnel as long
  as the protected LSP(s) have the common group attributes, including
  the modified tunnel sender address used for backup path
  identification as described in [RFC4090].

Is one of these a superset of the other?

  The MP maintains the PLR group assignments learned via signaling, and
  acknowledges the group assignments via signaling.  Once the PLR
  receives the acknowledgment, FRR signaling can proceed as group
  based.

nit: "group-based" is (1) hyphenated, and (2) an adjective, so we need a
noun to hang it off of.

  The PLR node that supports Summary FRR procedures adds an Extended
  ASSOCIATION object with B-SFRR-Ready Extended Association ID in the

nit: I'd suggest s/The/A/ since there's probably more than one PLR node
that meets these criteria, globally.

Section 3.1.2

  to [RFC2961].  The MESSAGE_ID object flags SHOULD be cleared when
  transmitted by the PLR and ignored when received at the MP.

When might this SHOULD be ignored?  (Are there cases where a MP might
assign semantics to a received flag that was not intentionally set by
the PLR with intent to induce those semantics?)

  Resv message (with exception of the MESSAGE_ID).  If the fields do
  not match, or if B-SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION object is absent
  in a subsequent refresh, the PLR node MUST consider the protected LSP
  as not Summary FRR capable.

This "absent in a subsequent refresh" makes me wonder about race
conditions where the PLR tries to refresh and the MP removes the
B-SFRR-Ready nature in its Resv, but the PLR attempts to engage the
bypass before the Resv makes its way to the PLR -- the PLR thinks the
bundled protection is active but the MP does not.  Is this just "normal
operation" and not worth worrying about?

Section 3.2.x

      The Bypass_Group_Identifier that is previously signaled by the PLR
      using the Extended Association object.  One or more
      Bypass_Group_Identifiers MAY be included.

nit: s/is/was/ (I think?)

      Replacement TIME_VALUES object to be applied to all LSPs
      associated with each of the following Bypass_Group_Identifiers
      after receiving the B-SFRR-Active Extended ASSOCIATION Object.

nit: s/following/preceding/ (I think?)

Section 3.3

  The facility backup method introduced in [RFC4090] takes advantage of
  MPLS label stacking (PLR imposing additional MPLS label post FRR) to
  allow rerouting of protected traffic over backup path.  The backup

nit: s/over backup path/over the backup path/

Section 3.3.2

  Note, an MP may receive more than one RSVP Path message with the B-
  SFRR-Ready Extended ASSOCIATION object from different upstream PLR
  node(s).  In this case, the MP node is expected to save all the
  received MESSAGE_IDs from the different upstream PLR node(s).  After
  a failure, the MP node determines and activates the associated
  Summary Refresh ID to use once it receives and processes the RSVP
  Path message containing B-SFRR-Active Extended ASSOCIATION object
  that is signaled over the bypass tunnel from the PLR, as described
  Section 3.4

What is a "Summary Refresh ID" and where is it defined?  I don't see it
either here or in RFC 2961.

Section 3.4

  The PLR MUST signal non-Summary FRR capable LSPs over the bypass
  tunnel before signaling the Summary FRR capable LSPs.  This is needed
  to allow for the case where the PLR node recently changed a bypass
  assignment and the MP has not processed the change yet.

Talking through this, there's two main cases for "changed a bypass
assignment", right -- "added an LSP to a group" and "removed an LSP from
a group"?  For the "removed from a group" case I see how this helps,
since the PLR sends an explicit change and the MP can assume that the
explicit change overrides any former group membership.  But I'm not sure
how/whether this helps with the "added to a group" change.

Section 3.4.1

  The RSVP_HOP_Object field in the B-SFRR-Active Extended ASSOCIATION
  ID is set to the common RSVP_HOP that was used by the PLR in
  Section 3.3 of this document.

I see something more plausible as a target for this reference in Section
3.2(.x) than in Section 3.3(.x).

Section 3.4.2

  1.  The RSVP_HOP object is copied from the B-SFRR-Active Extended
      ASSOCIATION ID.

  2.  The TIME_VALUES object is copied from the TIMES_VALUE field in
      the B-SFRR-Active Extended ASSOCIATION ID.  The TIME_VALUES

nit: I suggest using a parallel linguistic construction for all the
steps (e.g., always or never include "from the  field in").

Section 5

  When using procedures defined in this document, FRR (or the reroute
  of protected LSP(s) on to the bypass tunnel) can be activated on per
  group of protected LSP(s).  This allows an intruder to potentially
  impact and manipulate a set of protected LSP that are assigned to the
  same bypass tunnel group.

I'd consider saying something about how "new attacks enabled by
these mechanisms would also be possible without these mechanisms, just
at a higher cost in signalling messages" (with the possible exception of
the race condition I mentioned earlier).

[Ballot comment]
Balloting "No Objection" in the sense of "I trust the sponsoring AD, and have no time this ballot cycle to read the document." I have skimmed the document for typical ART-area gotchas, and found none.

[Ballot comment]
§3 reads:

  The PLR SHOULD assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all
  protected LSPs that egress the same protected interface and are
  protected by the same bypass tunnel.  This minimizes the number of
  bypass tunnel SFRR groups, and optimizes the amount of signaling
  needed between the PLR and the MP after FRR.

  The PLR MUST ensure all protected LSP(s) that are assigned the same
  Bypass_Group_Identifier use the same modified tunnel sender address
  for the backup path identification after FRR as described in
  [RFC4090].

  The PLR SHOULD assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all
  protected LSPs that share the egress link, and bypass tunnel as long
  as the protected LSP(s) have the common group attributes, including
  the modified tunnel sender address used for backup path
  identification as described in [RFC4090].


There is some redundancy in the first and third paragraphs, and "to ensure" is not an action that should be standardized, perhaps:

  The PLR MUST assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all protected LSP(s)
  that use the same modified tunnel sender address for the backup path
  identification after FRR as described in [RFC4090].

  The PLR SHOULD assign the same Bypass_Group_Identifier to all
  protected LSPs that egress the same protected interface and are
  protected by the same bypass tunnel, as long as the protected LSP(s) have
  common group attributes.  This minimizes the number of bypass tunnel SFRR
  groups, and optimizes the amount of signaling needed between the PLR and the
  MP after FRR.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below a couple of non-blocking COMMENTs (even if non blocking, I would appreciate it if authors sent a response).

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 3.1.1 and other places --

Is there any reason why the "Reserved field" does not specify "to be set to 0 when sending and ignored on received" ?

-- Section 3.1 --

The flow is a little strange IMHO, there is text at the end of 3.1.2 that probably applies to the whole section 3.1. If this is the case, then may I suggest to have a subsection 3.1.3 ?

-- Section 4 --

Is the number "11bbbbbb" be understood as a binary number ?

Is "ignoring and passing" the object enough for backward compatibility? I am not an MPLS TE expert at all... but I find this section a little light: I assume that this object must be understand by the remote side of the "FRR tunnel".

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work on this.  I have a couple of minor substantive comments and a number of editorial ones.

Substantive, but minor:

— Section 3.1.1 and throughout —
Should the “reserved” fields, which say, “Reserved for future use,” also add the customary, “MUST be set to zero and ignored on receipt”?

— Section 3.1.2 —

  The MESSAGE_ID object flags SHOULD be cleared when
  transmitted by the PLR and ignored when received at the MP.

Why SHOULD and not MUST?  How do things interoperate properly if this isn’t done, and what reasons might there be for not doing it?


Editorial:

— Section 1 —
Please expand  “LER”, “LSP”, and “LSR” on first use.

— Section 3 —

  For example, in the context of
  GMPLS-controlled LSP(s), the object is used to associate recovery
  LSPs with the LSP they are protecting.

There might be a number agreement problem here: as it’s written, it implies that multiple recovery LSPs might protect a single LSP, and a single ASSOCIATION object is used for all of them.  If that’s the case, then no change is needed.

But it’s likely that you want to make everything either singular or plural:

“the objects are used to associate recovery LSPs with the LSPs they are protecting.”

...or...

“the object is used to associate a recovery LSP with the LSP it is protecting.”

— Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 —

  Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits
      The Bypass_Group_Identifier that is previously signaled by the PLR
      using the Extended Association object.  One or more
      Bypass_Group_Identifiers MAY be included.

1. I would say “32 bits each”.
2. The definite article (“The Bypass_Group_Identifier”) doesn’t go with the fact that there can be more than one of them.  Also “is” doesn’t go with “previously”. 

So, maybe:

NEW
  Bypass_Group_Identifier: 32 bits each
      A Bypass_Group_Identifier that was previously signaled by the PLR
      using the Extended Association object.  One or more
      Bypass_Group_Identifiers MAY be included.
END



— Section 3.4 —

  Upon detection of the fault (egress link or node failure)

Was there a fault we were talking about? Or should it be “a fault”?

— Section 3.4.2 —

  each protected LSP associated with each Bypass_Group_Identifier, as
  if it received an individual RSVP Path messages for that LSP.

Make it, “as if it had received an individual RSVP Path message”.

— Section 5 —

  When using procedures defined in this document, FRR (or the reroute
  of protected LSP(s) on to the bypass tunnel) can be activated on per
  group of protected LSP(s).

I can’t parse “can be activated on per group”, and, hence, don’t understand it.  Can you fix it?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Association Type registry on the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/

two, new registrations are to be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: B-SFRR-Ready Association
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.1 ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: B-SFRR-Active Association
Reference: [ RFC-to-be; Section 3.2 ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: mpls@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, n.leymann@telekom.de, Nicolai Leymann
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for LSP Tunnels) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document: - 'RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute
Extensions for LSP Tunnels'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-12-25. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document updates the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)
  Traffic-Engineering (TE) procedures that are defined in RFC 4090 for
  facility backup protection.  The updates include extensions that
  reduce the amount of signaling and processing that occurs during Fast
  Reroute (FRR), and subsequently, improves scalability when undergoing
  FRR convergence after a link or node failure.  These extensions allow
  the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local Repair (PLR) and
  the Merge Point (MP) to be independent of the number of protected
  Label Switched Paths (LSPs) traversing between them when facility
  bypass FRR protection is used.  The signaling extensions are fully
  backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2559/

Write-Up for draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  The document should be published as a Proposed Standard.

  Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document
  specifies both protocol procedures and protocol elements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document defines extensions for RSVP-TE to reduce the amount
  of RSVP-TE signalling for FRR and improves the overall scalability
  in case of node or link failures.

Working Group Summary

  No controversies, the working group supports this document.

Document Quality

  The document is in good shape and well written. The motivation for
  defining the extensions is clear.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann is the Document Shepherd
  Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The Shepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail since
  it was posted as an individual document.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.
   
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No review necessary.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  All the authors has confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There is one IPR disclosed against draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
  which was replaced this document. The working group has been made aware
  of this both at wgap and wglc. There has been no discussion on the IPR.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There is a wide spread support for this document. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No such threats.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  ID nits has to comments:
  - date is in the past
  - Line 820 looks like a reference but probably isn't

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  The references are correctly split into Normative and Informative
  references.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are to existing RFCs.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The document needs two Association Type for Extended ASSOCIATION
  Objects:

    Value  Name                        Reference
    -----  ----                        ---------
    TBD-1  B-SFRR-Ready Association    Section 3.1
    TBD-2  B-SFRR-Active Association    Section 3.2

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    (see above)
 
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No such automated checks required.

Write-Up for draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte-05


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  The document should be published as a Proposed Standard.

  Proposed Standard is the right type of RFC since the document
  specifies both protocol procedures and protocol elements.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document defines extensions for RSVP-TE to reduce the amount
  of RSVP-TE signalling for FRR and improves the overall scalability
  in case of node or link failures.

Working Group Summary

  No controversies, the working group supports this document.

Document Quality

  The document is in good shape and well written. The motivation for
  defining the extensions is clear.


Personnel

  Nicolai Leymann is the Document Shepherd
  Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The Shepherd/WG Chair has followed this document in detail since
  it was posted as an individual document.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns.
   
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No review necessary.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  All the authors has confirmed that all IPRs realting to this document
  that they are aware of has been appropriatedly disclosed.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  There is one IPR disclosed against draft-ietf-mpls-summary-frr-rsvpte
  which was replaced this document. The working group has been made aware
  of this both at wgap and wglc. There has been no discussion on the IPR.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

  There is a wide spread support for this document. 

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No such threats.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  ID nits has to comments:
  - date is in the past
  - Line 820 looks like a reference but probably isn't

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  The references are correctly split into Normative and Informative
  references.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No. All normative references are to existing RFCs.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  No downward references.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  When this document is published no other documents will be changed.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 8126).

The document needs two Association Type for Extended ASSOCIATION
  Objects:

    Value  Name                        Reference
    -----  ----                        ---------
    TBD-1  B-SFRR-Ready Association    Section 3.1
    TBD-2  B-SFRR-Active Association    Section 3.2

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    (see above)
 
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  No such automated checks required.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Rakesh Gandhi , Vishnu Beeram , Abhishek Deshmukh , mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Mike Taillon , Markus Jork , Tarek Saad